Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 30.06.2022 in MC No.20/2019 of Family Court, Chavara. As per the above order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents wife and children. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
2. Heard.
3. The marriage and paternity are not disputed. The petitioner took a contention before the Court that children are staying with him. The Court directed the petitioner to take out a commission; but the petitioner refused. Subsequently the 1 st respondent produced the children before the Court. It will be 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 better to extract paragraphs 23 and 25 of the above judgment:
24. When this contention was raised by the respondent on 05.01.21. He agreed to take out an advocate commissioner on that day to prove that petitioners 2 to 4 are in his custody. On 05.01.21 at 3.30 pm when the case was again taken up by my learned predecessor, the respondent has not filed application for appointment of advocate commissioner. Hence the case was posted to 06.01.21. On 06.01.21, 1st petitioner and other petitioners were present. Petitioners 2 to 4 who are the children of 1st petitioner and respondent were produced by the 1st petitioner. My learned Predecessor has interacted with the children. It is recorded in the order sheet by my learned predecessor that all of them stated that they are 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 residing with their mother and the second petitioner Ancil Ali H who is the eldest son stated that they are living with the mother continuously for the last 2 years and did not reside with the father after parents have separated."
5. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision to protect the rights of women who are abandoned by their husbands. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 [2014 KHC 4455], the Apex Court held as follows:
3. Be it ingeminated that S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity.
8. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [2015 KHC 4261], the Apex Court observed like this:
15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind S.125 CrPC is for 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of S.125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under S.125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to 2025:KER:70636 RPFC NO. 358 OF 2023 pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under S.125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v.